Litigation

Argued that Illinois' statutory sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because it subjects youth to mandatory sentencing schemes upon conviction without the opportunity for any judicial review before being tried in adult court.

Argued that Martin, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile before Miller v. Alabama, is entitled to have his sentence revisited based on the second exemption to the prohibition on filing a second or successive habeas petition, which allows a subsequent petition when it is premised on "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable."

Argued that Miller v. Alabama's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences should apply retroactively to those handed down that sentence before Miller, and that every child convicted of murder in Michigan must receive an individualized sentence and, if life without parole is determined to be appropriate, the child must be afforded a meaningful opportunity for release.

Argued that Ohio’s mandatory transfer law is unconstitutional because it does not allow for individualized determinations on the propriety of prosecuting certain minors in adult criminal court rather than juvenile court.

Argued that the juvenile court erred by waiving its jurisdiction of a youth and transferring the youth to adult court based on the charged offense alone, without an individualized determination of the youth's maturity, culpability, and capacity for change.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Gordon, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that Pennsylvania's Sex Offender Registration Notification Act (SORNA), which requires youth to register on a sex offender registry for life, violates youths' rights under various provisions of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, as well as Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Mares, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

Argued that the sentences imposed on two juveniles under Indiana's felony murder statute conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as established research on adolescent brain science. On September 18, 2015 the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion.

Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Soto, Tulloch, Dingman, and Lopez, who were sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.

These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.

Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.

Support Juvenile Law Center

One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.